A Comparison Between WHODAS 2.0 and Modified Barthel Index: Which Tool is More Suitable for Assessing the Disability and the Recovery Rate in Orthopedic Rehabilitation?

Overview

Journal Clinicoecon Outcomes Res

Publisher Dove Medical Press

Specialty Health Services

Date 2018 Jun 13

PMID 29892201

Citations 3

Authors

Tiziana Galli

Paolo Mirata

Emanuela Foglia

Davide Croce

Emanuele Porazzi

Lucrezia Ferrario

Elena Ricci

Elisabetta Garagiola

Roberta Pagani

Giuseppe Banfi

Affiliations

Soon will be listed here.

Abstract

Purpose: The aim of the present study was to compare 2 clinical assessment tools, the Modified Barthel Index (currently administered to patients admitted into inpatient rehabilitation units after elective hip or knee arthroplasty) with the World Health Organization Disability Assessment Schedule (WHODAS) 2.0 scale, in order to identify which tool is more suitable for assessing the disability and the "recovery rate".

Patients And Methods: A perspective multicenter observational study was developed, involving 2 hospital authorities in Italy. Eighty consecutive cases of inpatients were enrolled. Patient's disability was evaluated using both of the aforementioned tools, before and after the rehabilitation program.

Results: The WHODAS 2.0 score was, on average, 12.21% higher than the Modified Barthel Index, before the surgical intervention. Modified Barthel Index measures could be considered as a determinant and a predictor of length of stay.

Conclusion: The Modified Barthel Index is limited, since it does not consider a patient's perspective. The WHODAS 2.0 scale fully considers a patient's perception of disability. Therefore, both assessment scales should be administered in clinical practice, in order to provide integration of clinical information with a patient's reported outcome measures.

Citing Articles

The disability profile in primary care may depend on the type of care and pain aspects.

Ferreira F, Goes A, Casarotto R, Fernandes T, de Castro S, Schmitt A Rev Saude Publica. 2024; 58:52.

PMID: 39699469 PMC: 11655058. DOI: 10.11606/s1518-8787.2024058005400.

Assessing the Effectiveness of Rehabilitation Interventions through the World Health Organization Disability Assessment Schedule 2.0 on Disability-A Systematic Review.

Potcovaru C, Salmen T, Bigu D, Sandulescu M, Filip P, Diaconu L J Clin Med. 2024; 13(5).

PMID: 38592067 PMC: 10931950. DOI: 10.3390/jcm13051252.

Custom Massive Allograft in a Case of Pelvic Bone Tumour: Simulation of Processing with Computerised Numerical Control vs. Robotic Machining.

Vivarelli L, Govoni M, Attala D, Zoccali C, Biagini R, Dallari D J Clin Med. 2022; 11(10).

PMID: 35628908 PMC: 9143408. DOI: 10.3390/jcm11102781.

References

Vandenbroucke J, von Elm E, Altman D, Gotzsche P, Mulrow C, Pocock S . Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE): explanation and elaboration. PLoS Med. 2007; 4(10):e297. PMC: 2020496. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pmed.0040297. View

Noonan V, Kopec J, Noreau L, Singer J, Masse L, Zhang H . Comparing the validity of five participation instruments in persons with spinal conditions. J Rehabil Med. 2010; 42(8):724-34. DOI: 10.2340/16501977-0584. View

Hudson M, Steele R, Taillefer S, Baron M . Quality of life in systemic sclerosis: psychometric properties of the World Health Organization Disability Assessment Schedule II. Arthritis Rheum. 2008; 59(2):270-8. DOI: 10.1002/art.23343. View

Hudson M, Thombs B, Steele R, Watterson R, Taillefer S, Baron M . Clinical correlates of quality of life in systemic sclerosis measured with the World Health Organization Disability Assessment Schedule II. Arthritis Rheum. 2008; 59(2):279-84. DOI: 10.1002/art.23344. View

Federici S, Meloni F, Mancini A, Lauriola M, Olivetti Belardinelli M . World Health Organisation Disability Assessment Schedule II: contribution to the Italian validation. Disabil Rehabil. 2009; 31(7):553-64. DOI: 10.1080/09638280802240498. View

Meesters J, Verhoef J, Liem I, Putter H, Vliet Vlieland T . Validity and responsiveness of the World Health Organization Disability Assessment Schedule II to assess disability in rheumatoid arthritis patients. Rheumatology (Oxford). 2009; 49(2):326-33. DOI: 10.1093/rheumatology/kep369. View

Posl M, Cieza A, Stucki G . Psychometric properties of the WHODASII in rehabilitation patients. Qual Life Res. 2007; 16(9):1521-31. DOI: 10.1007/s11136-007-9259-4. View

Ustun T, Chatterji S, Kostanjsek N, Rehm J, Kennedy C, Epping-Jordan J . Developing the World Health Organization Disability Assessment Schedule 2.0. Bull World Health Organ. 2010; 88(11):815-23. PMC: 2971503. DOI: 10.2471/BLT.09.067231. View

Schlote A, Richter M, Wunderlich M, Poppendick U, Moller C, Schwelm K . WHODAS II with people after stroke and their relatives. Disabil Rehabil. 2008; 31(11):855-64. DOI: 10.1080/09638280802355262. View

10.

Noonan V, Kopec J, Noreau L, Singer J, Masse L, Dvorak M . Comparing the reliability of five participation instruments in persons with spinal conditions. J Rehabil Med. 2010; 42(8):735-43. DOI: 10.2340/16501977-0583. View

11.

Baron M, Schieir O, Hudson M, Steele R, Kolahi S, Berkson L . The clinimetric properties of the World Health Organization Disability Assessment Schedule II in early inflammatory arthritis. Arthritis Rheum. 2008; 59(3):382-90. DOI: 10.1002/art.23314. View

12.

van Tubergen A, Landewe R, Heuft-Dorenbosch L, Spoorenberg A, van der Heijde D, van der Tempel H . Assessment of disability with the World Health Organisation Disability Assessment Schedule II in patients with ankylosing spondylitis. Ann Rheum Dis. 2003; 62(2):140-5. PMC: 1754428. DOI: 10.1136/ard.62.2.140. View

13.

MAHONEY F, BARTHEL D . FUNCTIONAL EVALUATION: THE BARTHEL INDEX. Md State Med J. 1965; 14:61-5. View

14.

Kulnik S, Nikoletou D . WHODAS 2.0 in community rehabilitation: a qualitative investigation into the validity of a generic patient-reported measure of disability. Disabil Rehabil. 2013; 36(2):146-54. DOI: 10.3109/09638288.2013.782360. View

15.

Roe C, Sveen U, Bautz-Holter E . Retaining the patient perspective in the International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health Core Set for low back pain. Patient Prefer Adherence. 2009; 2:337-47. PMC: 2770393. DOI: 10.2147/ppa.s4419. View

16.

Huybrechts K, Caro J . The Barthel Index and modified Rankin Scale as prognostic tools for long-term outcomes after stroke: a qualitative review of the literature. Curr Med Res Opin. 2007; 23(7):1627-36. DOI: 10.1185/030079907x210444. View

17.

Collin C, Wade D, Davies S, Horne V . The Barthel ADL Index: a reliability study. Int Disabil Stud. 1988; 10(2):61-3. DOI: 10.3109/09638288809164103. View

18.

Kayes N, McPherson K . Measuring what matters: does 'objectivity' mean good science?. Disabil Rehabil. 2010; 32(12):1011-9. DOI: 10.3109/09638281003775501. View

19.

Schlote A, Richter M, Wunderlich M, Poppendick U, Moller C, Wallesch C . [Use of the WHODAS II with stroke patients and their relatives: reliability and inter-rater-reliability]. Rehabilitation (Stuttg). 2008; 47(1):31-8. DOI: 10.1055/s-2007-985168. View

20.

Garin O, Ayuso-Mateos J, Almansa J, Nieto M, Chatterji S, Vilagut G . Validation of the "World Health Organization Disability Assessment Schedule, WHODAS-2" in patients with chronic diseases. Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2010; 8:51. PMC: 2893517. DOI: 10.1186/1477-7525-8-51. View